A Call To Essex Police From Neville? - The poll

[Jane]

Jeremy as the killer would have to say Neville would not call the police. As apparently Neville liked to keep things private. That is because as the killer,  he knew Neville had not called the police.

If he claimed Neville called the police, the police would check and show that is incorrect. Making the police instantly suspicious of Jeremy.

He only claimed Neville called the police decades later.

I thought he only claimed Neville called the police because someone gave him that information.

[Caroline]

Jeremy couldn't know for certain that Nevill called the police, and if Nevill did call the police, the person who received his call would also know, so Jeremy couldn't possibly be the only person to know.

Of course he could, if h killed him!

[Jane]

Of course he could, if h killed him!

If Neville was already dead it's highly unlikely he'd have called the police.

I'd go with that

[Patti]

The document may have had a stamp on it saying Chelmsford Court, but is there any documentation that it was actually discussed in court or shown to the jury? Just asking! 

[Caroline]

The document may have had a stamp on it saying Chelmsford Court, but is there any documentation that it was actually discussed in court or shown to the jury? Just asking! 

It actually says so on Bambers own website.

[Patti]

It actually says so on Bambers own website.

Does the website say so or is there documented proof that it was shown to the jury? Or are they contradicting themselves?? 

[scipio_usmc]

The document may have had a stamp on it saying Chelmsford Court, but is there any documentation that it was actually discussed in court or shown to the jury? Just asking! 

It makes no difference at all.  The claim was that the defense didn't know about the log and thus didn't know that the log suggested Nevill called police and thus that argument wasn't made at trial.  The reality is the trial defense knew about he document and also knew it doesn't suggest Nevill called police and that is why the defense did not assert such at trial and there is no evidence the appellate defense asserted such nonsense to the CCRC or Court of Appeal.

Only the campaign teams seems to continue asserting such rubbish and blatantly lying about other aspects as well including the mutually exclusive claims that the document was hidden from the trial defense and yet claiming the Jeremy and his defense team have always maintained Nevill called police.  On the contrary the claim was invented many years later Jeremy insisted at trial that his father was  a private man and didn't want police involved so that is why Nevill called him instead of police.

[Adam]

I thought he only claimed Neville called the police because someone gave him that information.

He saw a log which he could manipulate.

Just like the log saying there were conversations in the house.

[Patti]

It makes no difference at all.  The claim was that the defense didn't know about the log and thus didn't know that the log suggested Nevill called police and thus that argument wasn't made at trial.  The reality is the trial defense knew about he document and also knew it doesn't suggest Nevill called police and that is why the defense did not assert such at trial and there is no evidence the appellate defense asserted such nonsense to the CCRC or Court of Appeal.

Only the campaign teams seems to continue asserting such rubbish and blatantly lying about other aspects as well including the mutually exclusive claims that the document was hidden from the trial defense and yet claiming the Jeremy and his defense team have always maintained Nevill called police.  On the contrary the claim was invented many years later Jeremy insisted at trial that his father was  a private man and didn't want police involved so that is why Nevill called him instead of police.

I'm not sure how it all works to be fair with you. I suspect that all exhibits are labelled and numbers and a list is made out, then the list is passed on the CPS and the defense. Not sure if the defense has to request the exhibit. Maybe NGB can clarify.  :D :D :D

What did Terzon say?

[Caroline]

Does the website say so or is there documented proof that it was shown to the jury? Or are they contradicting themselves?? 

The document had a court stamp and is listed as an exhibit if that's not good enough - what would be? 

[Jane]

He saw a log which he could manipulate.

Just like the log saying there were conversations in the house.

 Please provide your source for this which I think is HIGHLY speculative.

[Mr. Gee]

Jeremy knows for sure that Nevill did not call police.  He knows that he entered the master bedroom and shot them and then killed Neivll in the kitchenand that he can't have called anyone.

That is why he was not of a mindset to think up the lie that Bonnett's log proves Nevill phoned police it took someone else to think up such a tale.

Both telephone logs were not available at the trial, only one log was available. It was not a tale made up by Bamber or anyone else for that matter. It was another log that was discovered years later. If there were originally both logs the fight would have taken place in the court room. But it didn't. Therefore we must conclude that only one log was available in court for the prosecution and defence. It is therefore only logical to come to the conclusion that the other log materialised years later and that means that only one of the logs was shown to the court.

[lookout]

 The kitchen light had to be on in order for the cop to have craned his neck to see Neville in the chair. It seems a tight corner in which to view from a window.
I've said this before,that the natural thing to do when looking through a window,is to look straight ahead first before looking nearside. All I can say is that the cops spatial vision must be extraordinary,as I would have said that as he looked ahead he DID see a womans' body first and then on entering,saw the body of Neville in the corner.

[Mr. Gee]

He saw a log which he could manipulate.

Just like the log saying there were conversations in the house.

This is of course highly speculative of you to confidently suggest this. I have already explained to the forum Bambers reaction and action when he discovered this "other" log. This is the kind of thing when I was trying to explain to Caroline that some on the forum rather than accept a plain explanation concerning this other log would rather suggest that Bamber lied. Which was not necessarily so.

[Patti]

The document had a court stamp and is listed as an exhibit if that's not good enough - what would be? 

Well its not, not really. It does not prove it was used in court all it proves is that it had a court stamp on it.  Unless there is documented evidence somewhere to suggest it was. It is likely or not likely that it was indeed used?

For the record I don't believe NB called the police, never have believed it, but I can see and understand why they come to that conclusion...